|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on Feb 24, 2005 12:52:11 GMT -5
You can conclude what you like, it doesn't make it true  I'm not an extreme or any other sort of primitivist, but I'm curious, do you really know any primitivists? Personally speaking, I too have a vested interest in technology, but mine stems from the fact that I've been born and bred into a technological world and without it I would be (at least temporarily) bored out of my mind. Being a bizarre and crazy fool I can cope with, but boredom really pisses me off. Fortunately it's not something I come across often and when I do, I can have mindless conversatons with others that suffer with the same As for your comment on not surviving as a hunter gatherer because of a visibilty difference, unless you were choosing to live as a hermit, I reckon you'd be ok. Just in case though, maybe you should stock up  |
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Feb 25, 2005 11:29:05 GMT -5
Hey AT, Astronomy??? Explain yourself. Err why? ???You do realise I said astronomy not astrology don't you? (btw I've called science pointless on many internet forums. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I do expect to be able to voice my opinion.) Voice all you like, that's what the forum's for. My point was that calling science pointless is all well and good, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but doing so whilst using the internet undermines your argument and leaves you open to charges of hypocracy. Surely science cannot be pointless if it allows people from all over the world to share information and opinions? And like CP said, science can allow for greater equality as it can make differently able people see and hear more clearly or get around better if they can't walk (I'm not saying that primitivist societies would be incapable of helping those with disabilities but they would always be dependant on others and I would argue that this could potentially lead to the formation of hierachies - with the 'weak' always dependant on the 'strong'. With the help of science at least some degree of autonomy would be possible for everyone). If science has the (unfortunately rarely realised in today's world) potential to allow for greater communication, equality and autonomy among individuals I fail to see how as an anarchist, you can conclude that science is always neccessarily pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Feb 25, 2005 11:31:01 GMT -5
Oh yeah check out the thread I've started in the 'Founding Aims and Principles' section.  |
|
|
|
Post by Walter and Theodor on Feb 26, 2005 7:17:44 GMT -5
anarchic tribes - what is the point in having an opinion on anything if you don't want others to agree with you. In short, aren't you saying that this is your utterly irrelevent belief and therefore no one should listen to you?
Sorry, I just hear this 'its just my opinion' thing quite a bit a I can't help but think that it is symptomatic of political alienation. First its a misunderstanding of liberalism which tolerates all opinions - it doesn't validate all opinions, it asks that opinions are tolerated as long as they can be supported in rational discourses.
By discounting science you automatically turn me against you - frankly, I need science, right now it is keeping a lot of my friends alive. And I don't think that virus's have equal rights to existence.
Michelaccio makes various rational points but the problem I and a lot of other 'political anarchists' have with primitivists is the kind of violence and neglect that seems implicit in much primitive thought. The kind of violence and neglect implicit in the not very useful generalizations of people who don't see the point in science.
The project, as I see it, is to transform the political field so that science is subservient to social interests. That undoubtedly involves significant criticisms of the mythic power that is held by science and scientists but there is a strong and prominant school of instrumentalist thought within scientific practice - its is just not the school of thought that a media discourse of industry and innovation and redemption through technology wishes to purvey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on Feb 26, 2005 18:58:41 GMT -5
WC,
I don't remember saying that science is always neccessarily pointless, just pointless in general. It's a generalisation. Some people here have stated that they don't like to generalise, others quite obviously do. We have a good mix of people here and just think how pointless it would be if we were all the same.
Nowadays the useful thing science can be used for (IMO) is undoing the damage that science so far has done.
As for helping out with differences of abilities such as seeing, hearing, walking etc. I understand your point, but where do you draw the line? In reality it's pretty damned easy to create the perfect human being, then we really would all be the same eh. Quality of life is relative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on Feb 26, 2005 19:24:54 GMT -5
W&T, Apart from the fact that having an opinion is a good thing and my opinions are part of what makes me who I am, where did you get the idea that I don't want others to agree with me? The fact that I don't expect such a thing just shows respect for other people, their opinions and who they are. Give it a go yourself, you might like it. No, are you? Political alienation? Liberalism? What on earth are you going on about now? I was born an anarchist and have pretty much lived as one ever since. Remember, anarchism is a lifestyle not a political movement. You nutter. Well that is your problem. Why should I care if your against me? That's a serious question and maybe one you should ask yourself when you're thinking that others are 'against' you. Anyway, I don't know what you're talking about with your friends being kept alive, and viruses having lesser rights and all that. You want to explain? I don't get it. Well I get that anyway. Thing is, science and technology have come about through the desire to kick boredom. Once you enter into such a realm, it's hard to put the brakes on. It's the same with smoking |
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on Feb 26, 2005 19:26:14 GMT -5
WC,
Yes I do, so go on then ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Feb 28, 2005 8:30:23 GMT -5
WC, Yes I do, so go on then ;D Not sure what I'm expected to explain here - I just picked astronomy as a random example of how science isn't neccessarily destructive and is neccessary if we want to learn more about the world and where we fit in in the big scheme of things. Maybe you don't care about stuff like that (which is certainly the impression I get when you say that GENERALLY science is pointless) but many people do, including myself. I don't take the line that something needs to have a practical application in order for it to be useful, knowledge for knowledge's sake is often enough. |
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Feb 28, 2005 9:22:06 GMT -5
WC, I don't remember saying that science is always neccessarily pointless, just pointless in general. It's a generalisation. Some people here have stated that they don't like to generalise, others quite obviously do. Gotcha. In fact I agree to a large extent. Although if you're going to make generalisations like "science (...) it's a nice idea but what's the point?" you need to clarify the fact that you're making a generalisation. It just saves valuable forum space in the long run. We have a good mix of people here and just think how pointless it would be if we were all the same. Word. Nowadays the useful thing science can be used for (IMO) is undoing the damage that science so far has done. Very true, among other things. Although I'd say the chief culprits were business/government rather than technology itself. If a guy starts trashing your garden with a hammer, you don't hold the hammer responsible do you? No, you kick the guy out, take his fucking hammer and start using it for sensible things like putting up new shelves and fixing those little bird-boxes he took his hammer to. As for helping out with differences of abilities such as seeing, hearing, walking etc. I understand your point, but where do you draw the line? In reality it's pretty damned easy to create the perfect human being, then we really would all be the same eh. Quality of life is relative. I agree a line should be drawn and it's not always clear where, but I certainly wouldn't rule out things like hearing aids, glasses and wheelchairs. Theoretically your criticism is sound but when put it to practice it's pretty heartless really. Quality of life is relative? Clever argument but it's overlooking the fact that primitivist societies would neccessarily be unequal if the the disadvantaged did not have the independance, autonomy and freedom that certain tecnologies could and do provide for them. You did not respond to my criticism that hierachies of 'strong' and 'dependant weak' could easily develop in a primitivist collective due to their inability to give the disadvantaged an equal opportunity. Of course I don't expect you to have all the answers or provide me with a blueprint but I think this is a serious criticism which must be addressed. My other major problem with primitivism is that it only seems to be possible in largely wild, untamed places with enough wild-life and vegetation to support human beings. In England, we've simply destroyed all our forrests and most of our wildlife. A thousand years ago, primitivist groups could easily have survived by hunting wild boar or deer but now? This would be especially difficult for those living in cities like I am. I live in Liverpool forchrissakes, what am I going to do chase rats down the docks all morning? Seriously, what do primitivists propose for those living in places such as these? Oh yeah and I doubt science was invented out of a desire to kick boredom. I'm going to need some evidence, or perhaps I'm getting too 'scientific'.  |
|
|
|
Post by Walter and Theodor on Feb 28, 2005 10:10:14 GMT -5
Translation: Michelaccio makes various rational points but rather than respond to them, it is easier dismiss them by generalizing that primitivist thought is essentially violent, and then claim that it is someone else doing the generalizing. Care to unpack how any of my rational points are implicitly violent? Michellacio - I didn't suggest that your rational points were implicitly violent. Nor did I say that there was some essential violence to primitivist thought. I was thinking specifically of deep ecologists - a perspective which often seems heartless to me. And what's up with the point scoring? Why do I have to take you on point for point to be able to join this conversation in good faith? I made my own points - about what I thought was necessary and I thought I was stepping into the conversation somewhat lightly but instead my position is overstated and then I am accussed of all sorts... Is there some particular contribution that would be acceptable right now? |
|
|
|
Post by Walter and Theodor on Feb 28, 2005 12:17:57 GMT -5
Your example is an ad hominem attack though. My criticisms referenced a general line of thought, technology--science - medicine -- that you are probably aware of though you may not subscribe to them yourself. Clearly I should have been clearer and more detailed as my generality which I thought was an opener was taken for a crass assault.
Your counter example is just character assassination -- its steps outside of the discussion to make the point by appealing to the petty individual small mindedness of communists that wasn't the object of discussion. It seems I should understand myself as implicated whereas I thought I was excepting you from the very strain of though I was offering up as a problem or sticking point for me. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't pretending for a moment that I agree with you...just trying to add something else to the discussion that was already taking place.
I think the point is taken though...
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Feb 28, 2005 12:24:46 GMT -5
I'm not an extreme or any other sort of primitivist, but I'm curious, do you really know any primitivists? Yeah, I know a few, and I've had some pretty good discussions with them both in RL and online (notably on the enrager forums. Of course, they don't really try to live any sort of primitivist lifestyle - they're at least as dependent on tech as I am. Having grown up in the country, I'm quite capable of keeping myself amused without tech, so that's one problem I wouldn't have (except that it'd be harder if I couldn't see properly). But surely that would mean other people mediating between me and the environment, which would lead to division of labour, and the kind of alienation that primitivists are trying to eradicate.  M and W&T - stop being so touchy, both of yez. |
|
|
|
Post by Walter and Theodor on Feb 28, 2005 12:28:45 GMT -5
W&T - stop being so touchy. ok |
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on Feb 28, 2005 16:44:31 GMT -5
CP,
so you do really know some primitivists. I'm suprised, and I asked because I guessed from your name that you were a city dweller. Well I've been wrong before.
Also I was under the impression that it was primarily an american thing. I had never heard of the word being used in relation to anarchists before reading online.
I have however spent over a decade living without electricity and running water and with 99% less technology than most people around these parts.
I too have no problem keeping myself amused, but living the solitary lifestyle that I do, to cut the tech world completely would leave a gap. As I said, this would be temporary, for many reasons.
Maybe, I couldn't say for sure. From what I know of the children born into tech-less societies that are differently or less able, they seemed to be treated and behaved as equals. I think people forget how dependant we all are. Or would the word interdependant be better? I'm not sure, as I said.
Btw, seems we missed each other at the bookfair last year. Maybe next time eh:)
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Mar 1, 2005 10:22:44 GMT -5
CP, so you do really know some primitivists. I'm suprised, and I asked because I guessed from your name that you were a city dweller. I am a city dweller, and so are all the primitivists I know. Like I said, they're at least as dependent on tech as I am - they just believe we shouldn't be. I think it is primarily an american thing, but there are a few of them here. Thankfully the local ones are relatively sane, unlike some of the american primmies I've come across online. The ones that don't die at birth from lack of medical technology, that is. I challenge you to find an example of a tech-less society with infant mortality rates comparable to those in the west. That's one of the problems I have with primmies - their main aim seems to be to get rid of that interdependence (which is mediated by division of labour, and by technology) since being dependent means we can be dominated. Indeed. Are you in London? |
|
